women. the book makes a great gift for the holidays with stories of fascinating women and how their legacies resonate today. share the stories of america's first ladies for the holidays. the book is available as hardcover or e-book from your favorite bookstore or online bookseller. be sure to order your copy today. of2015 marks the release d.w. griffith's film "birth of a nation," originally released in 1915. the backsonian hosts story as they examine the film. this program is about an hour and a half.

>> hello. i'm chris wilson, director of experience in program design here at the museum. on behalf of the smithsonian institution and our partner at the humanities, i would like you to be welcomed to the history forum. when we first decided to launch the history film forum, and to examine the state of narrative and documentary film as public history two years ago, we knew we wanted to consider "the birth of a nation", especially this year as the controversial and monumental film turns 100. as perhaps the best example of the power of film to affect the public's understanding or misunderstanding of history, it be included. the best it have to be included. over the past four days here, "the birth of a nation" has come up over and over in discussions with filmmakers, scholars, and the audience. we are happy to be able to join with back story with the american history guys, the virginia foundation for the humanities, and c-span american history television to bring you this show looking at the film,

what it means one century later, and what lessons we can draw for the creation of history film today. thank you for joining us. and now, the history film forum presents, "the birth of a nation" at 100, a live back story show. [applause] >> from the virginia foundation for the humanities, this is "backstory with the american history guys." >> welcome to "the birth of a nation at 100 years." we would like to thank the smithsonian, national museum of american history, the national endowment for the humanities, and the history film forum for giving us this opportunity to spend some time with you. i am peter onuf. >> i am brian balogh. ayers.

we are excited to be here on american history tv on c-span3. if anyone wants to watch online later or what to do again, go to c-span.org\history. if you've never heard of back story, i'm sorry. now is your chance. we are a nationally syndicated public radio show, we work with virginia foundation for the humanities, and every week we explore one issue across three centuries of american history, heard on over 200 stations around the country, including wma every sunday at 2:00. we are also available whenever you get podcasts, including our backsto butstory -- ry.radio.org.

if anyone is watching at home, you can tweet questions using #backstorylive. >> enough of this 21st century technology. let's talk about an early 20th-century technology film, because we are all here tonight to talk about the "the birth of a nation." it is quite incredible to me that we are still talking about it in 2015. i know that this nation still struggles with a remarkable set of racial issues. yet, looking behind me, it seems like "the birth of a nation" gets at some issues that were even more ominous and challenging than the ones we face today. i'm also amazed that we are talking about "birth of a nation" 100 years later because , frankly, i watched the film again this morning, and it can be really dull. [laughter] in an age of twitter, as ed was going on, of instagram, things

moved very, very slowly in "birth of a nation." there are klansman riding around on horses, followed by klansman riding around on horses. [laughter] you get my drift. it is pretty amazing that we are still talking about this film, and we are going to try to understand over the next hour and a half, with your help and questions, try to figure out why we are still talking about this film. >> i thought it was pretty boring, too. three hours and six minutes, but who was counting? [laughter] if we had been here 100 years ago, it would have been different. it would have been a major event, a spectacle. it was the greatest film ever shown. it was a masterpiece, hailed by newspapers across the country, showing at hundreds of theaters, to tens of thousands of people .

it had a 44 week run in new york, at broadway prices. that would be in those days. $2 $50 for a movie -- that is the equivalent. not only was it a cultural sensation, the media event -- it was a blockbuster. it was the buzz of the nation. and it also seemed to have status because woodrow wilson showed it at the white house. we tried to get our show into the white house, we have not succeeded yet. it was a big deal. it made a big splash. what do you think? should we go home now? >> we could go on talking forever. you should know to get help in introducing and talking about this film, we have three special guests tonight.

faith davis ruffins, annette gordon-reed, and dj spooky. but before we give them time, since we control the mic, i think we should start with something very basic. what is the movie about, and what is the stuff that the movie is about about? >> make it less boring. >> this is kind of box office poison. it's about reconstruction. >> no one actually left. >> it is early yet. >> what is reconstruction? >> reconstruction is a lot of things. two big things. it is reconstructing after the american civil war. there are two big things that have to be reconstructed. one is the nation. are they going to be able to put the country that has been a t brutal war with itself or four years back together? abraham lincoln referred to that as reconstruction with a small r, even during the war.

but then there's the reconstruction we think about, how would you reconstruct the world's powerful slave society, 4 million people held in perpetual bondage that ann's -- ends overnight? how do you reconstruct that into something into society? >> when does this actually begin? appomattox -- >> already wrong. [laughter] >> i am the 20th-century guy. they had been worrying about it during the civil war. how will we do it. we don't know what abraham lincoln had in mind. he is ah of a nation" hero partly because we don't , know what he would have done. whatever we had would have been better if he had been president. after appomattox, there are two years in which lincoln's successor, andrew johnson, is in charge. his idea of reconstruction is

give it back to the confederates. you lost, good try, it's all over, we are putting the same powerful people back in charge. let's change slavery as little as possible. let's change any opportunity for black people as little as possible. that goes on for two years. >> is that it? >> no. then there's another decade, because people in the north who might have gone along with a more easy-going reconstruction, are outraged everything they just sacrificed for seems to be given away by andrew johnson. everyone in the north, or those radical people? >> the republicans who had won in 1864 and are going to win again in 1868. the majority of white northern men who are voting. republicans come back and say, the white south is having riots, repressing black people every way possible. we are going to have to have radical reconstruction. >> so what is radical? [laughter] >> think about this.

in no other place in the world history in the modern era do you see a formerly enslaved population in franchised with the vote. nowhere else do you see a freedmen's bureau coming in -- what is that? it's basically a refugee organization using surplus materials from the u.s. army to help people and it is radical because they are occupying the south with union soldiers, including, as the movie loves to dwell upon, african-american union soldiers. that is seen as a great travesty. by world history standards, it is radical. >> but tell me, what was really at stake? if he had to tease this on cnn or fox news, our c-span. >> what is at stake is the future of the country.

what kind of united states is going to come out of this civil war that killed the equivalent of 8.8 million people if it happened today? everything is at stake. things are so fluid, there are a lot of different features you could imagine. >> how long did it last? >> 12 years. >> ok, we are into the 70's now. explain to me why people in 1915 would be so spun up about a film about reconstruction? that doesn't make sense to me. >> first of all, it's a lot closer in time than we are. usut the same time from today as when we first got into vietnam. it is that current. alive thatople are have lived through reconstruction. there was a growing consensus among historians, political scientists, white americans, that it had been a terrible mistake. that never should you have used

the power of the federal government to go down to the local level and try to rearrange things as profound as relationships between black and white people. the director of the movie very consciously had this come out on the 50th anniversary of the end of the civil war. people are thinking and talking about the war. it is a way of capturing that as well. the "birth of reconstruction." d.w. griffith is not interested in your story. he has another story. he calls this film "birth of a nation." why that title? i thought we had that when my guy wrote the declaration of independence. [laughter] >> here's what happened. this is just really hard for us to wrap our minds around. what does he mean? we will talk later about the plot of the movie, but the basic idea is that this is reconstruction that had to

reboot the country, to have the union of the white north and the white south. it is literally a road map between the two. once you have that roadmap, you can have the birth of the actual united states that we should have had all along, which is as the phrase on one of the titles yan."r they are actually talking about the white nation coming together. >> in the 19th century, nation and race are very closely linked. that is one of the most jarring things for us. we think of a multicultural, multiethnic nation, that is what we celebrate in the modern american narrative, but in this time, race and nation are pretty close. that is the very heart of romantic nationalism. and that is all about sex. it is about family formation. in this story, if you have the misfortune to see the film -- [laughter] it is a story about family afterion or reformation

the carnage of the civil war, now overcoming the obstacles of reconstruction and the encroachment of freed people, on the very legitimacy of the birth of this nation. it has got to be racially pure. >> that is why you have the sinister african americans who are "corrupt" and morally questionable. they are all these kind of implicit things. >> exactly, they stack the deck for anything african americans could do that was wrong. that is what the film dwells upon. they are dwelling upon the presence of black troops, and black men who were enslaved are now in legislative halls, passing laws that are going to make it possible for white men and black women to marry. almost a kind of obsession with racial purity. >> every nation has a boundary.

the boundaries are reestablished around the white nation. but these caricatures of african-americans that we find so profoundly offensive are a way of staking out a boundary, the new boundary of a new nation, born legitimately to be the people it could always be. >> the villains are all mulatto, people of mixed raced. you've got to avoid that at all cost. this is where the ku klux klan comes in. they're the ones with the crosses and disguised horses, and themselves, that are going to restore legitimacy through violence. the story of reconstruction is so complicated, and so profound, that people of lots of different political persuasions believe it is a failure, but for different reasons. >> we have beaten up on the film pretty good. so far. but didn't the film rely on

basically professional accounts of reconstruction at the time? >> right, here is the historian who wrote it. it is hard to believe historians were ever wrong about anything. [laughter] the first professional historians made it their purpose to say reconstruction had been a horrible, flawed experiment. for just these reasons. the scenes they depict did happen. the ku klux klan was there. there were black men on juries. black men did vote. there were african american soldiers. it's not that they are making up things, it is the meanings that they are impugning to that. >> ok, so then what does the film and those historical accounts, what did they leave out? i can name one thing on the the best i can name one thing not in the film. -- i can name one thing not in the film. peter talked about families, and the nation as family, and we

will talk about the actual plot in a couple of minutes, but there are two key families. white families, no african american families. i would love to hear -- i will put you on the spot. what reconstruction was actually like, as best we know, for the african american community. >> here's a way to think about it. you and your family have been held in slavery. odds are you have watched loved ones sold away from you. the war comes in, you are now free with nothing but the shirt on your back and you are supposed to make a new life for yourself. frefriedmans -- edmen's bureau does help. but basically you are on your own. there are white schoolteachers . but basically the community has

to build a new life for themselves, and whatever set hand. here's the remarkable thing. while all of this turmoil is going on, african-american families are building their own churches, their own schools, having remarkable increases in literacy, and they are even managing somehow, to acquire land. by 1910, 80% of all black virginia farmers own the land they live on. how did they do that, when everything is stacked against them? there is a story on the surface, and then there is a deep story of persistence. >> and it is a longer story. one of the ways that griffith communicates the message is by compressing all those years. we don't see any of this happening. it is offscreen. what we see on screen is the family romance, and that is of course, the reunion that most white americans thought the civil war was supposed to be about, or if you are a southerner, it was supposed to end that old union. >> there's a reason people are lining up to see this. it is telling them fundamentally and affirming story.

you white people are america, and now the country has been reborn, and the north and the south are joined together. >> and by the way, it is telling them at the same time, scientific racism and eugenics are really beginning to take over. when jim crow is beginning to be put in place throughout the south. >> i would like to think that the late 19th century is really truly awful -- unusually, uniquely awful. but this goes back to the 18th century and beyond. the dream of a white nation is jefferson's dream. when he talks about ending slavery, it is not just emancipation. that is what we like to remember about jefferson. it is xp creation, -- expat riation, separating the races. they were at war. the idea blacks and whites could live together peacefully without the institutional structure of slavery or its moral equivalent, it was impossible for people to

imagine. >> that is why the very year this movie is made is the very year segregation, 50 years after the end of slavery, is put in place. this is like the high point of segregation. they had taken this long to figure out how to segregate everything. this movie in some ways is a segregated movie. >> and that was the big modern idea. this is how we will deal with race. in the aftermath of slavery, we have finally sorted it out. >> and the ku klux klan was also reborn. another way you can sort it out. >> you guys have done a pretty good job of explaining why the movie mattered in 1915. i think i will keep you around. [laughter] but i'm curious to explore why the movie has continued to matter, and what the reaction is and what it has been, and i want to call upon our first guest,

faith davis ruffins. curator at the museum of history at the smithsonian. i learned today she's been here for 30 years -- 35 years. a long time. she specializes in african-american history. i'm going to chat with phrase -- faith for about 10 minutes. we will try to answer some of these questions. i will try to not knock over the table as i move over. welcome to backstory. it is great of you to join us. let me start off by asking you -- we've been jumping around talking about history. let me start out by asking you to tell us about the plot movie.

this three hours and six minutes. >> it is a long film. it is basically a romance. that is something that gets lost. it is a tremendous spectacle in families, onee from pennsylvania that are abolitionists, and one from south carolina that become part of the confederacy. their sons meet at school before the war and they are separated by the war. war,they meet before the the northern family visits the southern family. they fall in love. there is a love story at the center of this. >> the boys kind of fall in love. >> to some degree. they become close. there are several boys. two of them die, one from each family, during the civil war. they die at the same moment in

each other's arms. what happens is after the war is over and this is what sets the family romance against this theer epic, is that both southern family and members of the northern family are threatened in this terrible evil , reconstruction. there threatened by the changes that put corrupt black people in charge of the south. comes in as the heroic saviors of the northern and southern families. once they say the south, it is safe for members of the family to marry. one of the interesting things about this film is that for people at the time who loved the movie, it is the romantic part of it that is so appealing.

it is this sentimental story of joining the nation together to reinforce your ideas literally by marriage. they are joined together in their unity against this evil that has been perpetrated on the nation by putting african-americans in charge. the klan is reorganized. it's not completely gone. it has fallen into disrepair. film as ases this recruiting technique well into the 1970's. they would show the film and ask people to join. it's quite an effective recruiting technique for people in the klan. >> i've been hearing since college about the technical wonders. i love film but i'm not a

, techie. i don't understand how to set up scenes. tell me why this film is so important even today. >> even today, it is used to teach film students. it is an enormous spectacle. you have to realize you are jaded about spectacles. but at that time, putting things like this on film was new. there are night scenes which no film nightw to scenes. there are enormous battle scenes. figures say 18,000 people were used in this movie. 3000 horses were used in this film. there are quite a lot of alleged african americans in the film. all of the main characters are

white people in blackface. there are allegedly a few african-americans among the extras but overwhelmingly there are virtually no african americans used in the film. these huge battle scenes, the night filming, and then there are some special techniques that we think of today as very ordinary such as crosscutting. people in different places are on the screen at the same time so you can see the subplots. there are many subplots. you can see different people doing different things in different parts of the country at the same time where they are telling different sides of the story at the same time. other elements are sometimes theed the iris effect or ocular effect in which the film camera holes in and out. that was very dramatic.

it was very new. no one had seen that before. the still photograph he carries around, the back and forth with that was interesting. >> it heightens the sentimental quality of the film. these techniques are used even today. "titanic," a romance set against the backdrop of a much larger story. says at theh beginning of the film that it is a plea for motion picture making. powerfulto show how motion pictures can be. and this film does show that. >> tell us a little bit about the immediate reaction. >> the national association for the advancement of colored people was formed in 1909. it is a young organization at this time. they know that the film is going to be made because the author of

feet of novels is a friend of d.w. griffith. are aware, because the novels have been bestsellers, and there is a stage play made of it. the naacp is aware before the film opens. they are very worried. one of the founders of the naacp says the novels -- people who read the novels were already against us. y, not who saw the plac many people can see a play. but if they make a movie, it will galvanize people against our cause. they organized protests around the country. the protests were not successful from keeping the film shown except in a number of places. shown, critics say

there are 200 riots across the united states. this is the old meaning of riots in which white americans went to black communities and pillaged and burned down people's homes and attacked people in black communities. the film is so inflammatory that it galvanizes people to attack african american populations. the naacp continues to protest the film because it is rereleased several times. in the 1920's and 1930's. this helps the naacp become a truly national organization. by organizing these protests around the country. it does help their organizing significantly, it inflames white americans who feel themselves to be potentially under attack. by the changes in american society. >> the naacp knows this is a

powerful tool. did african american lawmakers respond with this powerful force? >> absolutely. perhaps the most famous response wasted filming in 1919 and released in 1920. it's explicitly a counter to the d.w. griffith film. if i ask youill me to tell me the plot? >> it is another complex plot in which a romance is at the center of the plot. a young african american woman reaches out to raise funds for a school in mississippi. there is still a piney woods school in mississippi today. funds,course of raising she has a series of misadventures. her fiance is stolen by an evil cousin.

it is a long, serious romantic event. >> how long is it? >> it is about two and a half hours long, silent film. is that when the young man falls in love with her, tries to find out, she explains this terrible history in which she was adopted by a black family in the south. the black family realizes they are being cheated out of their harvest money by the local plantation owner. the plantation owner is killed by another white farmer. because the community thinks that her adopted father and mother killed the land owner, they are lynched. much more of the truth of reconstruction, which is african american communities

are trying to buy land, trying to establish communities, trying to build their own churches, and they are thwarted in this by extreme violence. and violence that is unanticipated and unjust. this film does try to show the story that ed began. tell us about what is not portrayed. >> unfortunately, the show does not get the number of theaters. it is not shown in the white house. woodrow wilson, the first southern born president to be elected after the civil war does not ever see "within our gates" as far as we know. >> i want to thank you so much for joining us today. [applause]

>> what do you make of that, peter? >> i thought it was an wonderful interview. whitetion of galvanizing america and consolidating and emerging reality, because this is not something d.w. griffith invented. to a bigo what leads change for the worst. it makes things different. it is in those circumstances we have a kind of dialogue. a conflict between the growing danger. this is not progress, just the opposite. the growing danger of being furniture -- further marginalized and oppressed. >> that's what strikes me. we talk about the emergence of scientific racism and jim crow

segregation and these films. this is all cutting edge. this is twitter and instagram. economics infused with psychology. this is all the cutting edge science and technology of the day. >> think of segregation as a new technology, just as this film is a new way of communicating. it seems like a perfect storm and a disastrous one for african americans. it's not just the film. it is the larger culture. i think we need to talk more about that. >> speaking of the perfect youm, i think we have talking to annette gordon-reed. i cannot think of a more perfect storm. historian at harvard law. she is a macarthur fellow and an all-around wonderful human being.

what can i say? she is my co-author. [laughter] annette. [applause] thanks for being here. this is a powerful moment. it is not just the history of film we are talking about. we are talking about a major moment in american history. in many ways, "birth of a nation" epitomizes that moment and is part of that moment. what happens next? >> this is something that galvanized the african american community. it has the effect of making people realize they have to respond to this threat, that there is something new in the world, this type of technology that can tell the story that has not been told before. they used to go through the

life inth film and show southern society before they had editing and the capacity to do those things griffith does. everything, black families, good scenes, bad scenes, and everything. all of a sudden, you have this , this genius, who presents something that means they have to respond. >> this is a massive editing job in which african americans are edited out or into -- >> and ways that fit notion of white supremacy. they have to respond to that. the naacp gets involved. the naacp is an organization of african americans but also white. the decision to go after the film lifts those groups.

there is the issue of freedom of speech versus censorship, versus the problems of people marginalized. freedom of speech is not free for people who get their houses burned down and attacked and so forth. it is another part of the story, another thing to deal with we would not have thought of before this comes along. >> you can mobilize against "birth of a nation." that mobilization is powerful. maybe out of that response a new campaign and new institutions emerge. meanwhile, the problem is worse than ever in some ways. the story at the heart of "birth of a nation" we have been describing as romantic and sentimental. we use those words to dismiss it, but it indicates the power of the story. how does that carry on in mainstream america, the euphemism for white america? it brings people together.

doingtifies what they are , the structure of segregation. misogynist and them -- at the heart of this is the fear of racial mixing. we get the one drop rule during this time. blacks begin to mobilize. lawyers, young people attacked this. one thing they realize is a real sore point for white people is the question of interracial relations. so you develop a legal strategy for challenging all of these things at the same time you are in thising any interest notion of intermixture. which as you said is a whole nation of people who are one who cannot be in the same family is problematic. it's a real tricky business of how people were strategizing

about how to bring the african american community forward, how to do that and challenge at the same time they are not going to inflame white people because they know that is the thing bothering them. a bizarre strategy. it was successful. it means that at the end of the day people are dancing around an issue. are we one people or not? >> griffith starts the story with lincoln, the civil war. after "birth of a nation," there is a new romance of the north with the south and that extends back to the antebellum period. afters national traction "birth of a nation." it is expressed in movies like "gone with the wind."

the romance with the south, it was not just brothers fighting brothers, but we have lost something as if this cherished moment in american history with plantations. >> you beat up your little brother and feel bad about that. then you let him have his way in a sense. that is essentially what happened. everybody says history is written by the victors. here our social history is written by the people who were defeated. the south and sunday rebels the mesh southern rebels -- the south and southern rebels, watching westerns, they are often heroes done post-civil war. the hero is a member of the southern army. it is a romanticization. it is at the expense of african americans.

-- it is good to be a rebel. but what are they rebelling from? what are they running away from? that never comes into the picture. >> you have called it bizarre, a difficult moment in our national history. things are happening in the african american community. you have mentioned the naacp. give us a broader picture of a mobilization that would eventually get traction and make a difference. what happened in reconstruction is lost in the movie. there's a time after "birth of a nation" when there is another mobilization, a reconstruction within the african american community. >> middle-class blacks, various movements for solidarity. the marcus garvey movement. there's a war going on.

there are black soldiers later who come back from the war and after this field that they are owed something because their -- they are citizens. they have done the ultimate thing you can do as a citizen to serve your country. to come back and have them play "caps on races" was an insult. ofre are stage productions "uncle tom's cabin" becoming more outrageous and ridiculous. this movie is there. there are other kinds of movies being made. one will be the niggger, using that term actually. it was supposed to be sympathetic. sympathetic in its own way. naacp has to decide how they will deal with that. i think this notion of a coordinated response changes

people. you have all different types of movements. the naacp, marcus garvey, all those people are coming together . not all are nationalists. but certainly a self-consciousness. is a kind of alternative nationalism. you might even say there is a cultural war in merging. war has been important in the history of race relations. it is now african americans mobilizing for the long haul. these degrading insults, these caricatures, are just the tip of a really big iceberg. we are getting ready for another war. world war ii was another time of profound change. movement begins

, there are elements that begin with reaction. >> absolutely. culturally, the first lawyers, all of the strategies laying the groundwork for brown versus board of education. the 1920's,n 1930's, and 1940's. it begins during this time when people are mobilizing against the film and idea. the insults are not just in the united states. they realize the film will not just be shown here. it will be people all over the world. , the phrase, is threatened by this. inwe like to tell our story terms of democratization and the spread of rights. .his gives us another narrative it is a history of a kind of war. >> the kind of war you mentioned before. people look at jefferson's statement that if african americans remained in the united

states after freedom, that there would be a war. some said we would have that. we certainly have had a cold war and sometimes a hot one. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> thanks a lot, peter. nette.anks, and tha we covered a lot of territory. we see "birth of a nation" is still a living presence in american culture. it is like this dream we have had that we cannot forget. we're fortunate to have another guest who is going to help us think about the presence of that passed in our lives today. i'm happy to bring to the stage

electronicial spooky.musician, dj [applause] >> all of these historians talking about your art form. i have imagined what this must sound like. we are eager are you to take the stage and tell us what you have done. you have done things with it. >> first and foremost what comes to mind when i hear about the historical context, to me the subtle context of the civil war was the 14th amendment. that is what gave corporations personhood. the african american experience being given citizenship after the war, the 14th amendment set the tone for also corporate

democracy. motto these days is that where all sharecroppers. you're struggling to pay your credit card bills. it is kind of contemporary sharecropping. i chuckle over that. i will give you a funny story. when you see the everyday experience of living in the south, i was having a concert at duke university with my remix of the film. guy comesessor oriel up and says i am one of the descendents of the cameron family in the film. i said it is not my film. it is a remix. he was like, i would like to invite you to see the ruins of the plantation. it is near durham. at one time, the family in the

film was a real family and they were one of the largest plantation owners in the south. i'm with this white guy, the descendent of this huge slaveowning family. male, youcan american never know. it could be that he is going to kill you or something. statistically, it is usually a white male going crazy killing everybody, not a terrorist. i visited this plantation. it is ruins. it was a hot summer afternoon with the southern humidity. coming out ofind this open field. is the profound experience of the ruins, of what was the possibility or potential of america. a very profound movement unless moment. lingers at every level.

to express what it must have been like to feel the devastation. i did not feel devastation. it felt like liberation. i would celebrate those ruins, like burn it down more. >> it is an entirely different story with the same event. >> one person's liberation is another persons innovation. my remix of "birth of a nation" is available. we have copies here. i rescored the film. for me, cinema and the american narrative, americans like to do things big. if you think about the impact of referenced the film. when theyypse now,"

have helicopters coming to bomb a village, they put a speaker out and play "flight of the coppery -- valkery." francis ford coppola said "birth of a nation" was one of the inspirations for the idea of an occupied nation, village to village combat, things like that. there is a scene for scene remix of "birth of a nation." just a little bit if you are into history. [laughter] you remember the scene. f."arlie doesn't sur napalm. you have two think about remixing and sampling, which is this generation's response.

we have the attention span of a gnat, the republican debate. cinema is our legacy. >> how did you go about remixing "birth of a nation"? it is a huge film and you took it on. >> one of the panelists mentioned earlier it is pretty boring. if i were going to do a hip-hop update, you have to have burning ghettos, helicopters over the white house, edward snowden, hackers taking over russian satellites. that would be the update. if you look at the original, there have been a generation of people responding. one of my other favorites is " where she remix is the narrative. it was a best-selling book, "gone with the wind," a play on

the words. there is a lot of narrative play. i edited scene for scene and had the kronos quartet respond and sample that, and then edited the film back together two think about tempo. if you think about electronic music, there is a notion that electronic music has become the vernacular. if you look on facebook or youtube, huge volumes of people are uploading videos restored. they will take a found sound and re-appropriate it to whatever. this had already been a novel and a play. he is remixing it as a movie or photoplay. seeing,what we are emergent technology. now we are at a similar moment? >> artists are the people who help reframe the debate.

wagner in the 19th century when the less coined the term that means "total artwork." fan.ith was a huge wagner there has been this notion of epic narrative. if you go back to the ancient greeks, people like to hear huge drama. with cinema, especially after early 1910, in long form. this was long at that time. a music video for us is long at three minutes. look at adele. there is a tremendous attention span deficit going on. think about the rise of the minstrel show. it is america's d.n.a. of the collision of all these different

cultural paradox. it is white people in blackface pretending to be white in the middle of a plantation. i can't imagine more postmodern than that. when you look at sound, when two is all silent, variables, sound and silence, the characters have to tell the ir bodies.th the most of the characters are in white face and blackface. there's a kind of awkward sickness to the character. for me it's not -- it's like if you were black at the time, seeing that, i cannot imagine welfare role-playing james earl jones in star wars. about the controversy characters in star wars.

the main storm trooper character is black. darth vader is black. [laughter] just roll with it. your remixingt of to sort of neutralizes, to make it something new and drainage of its impact in our culture? a james brown bea t i grew up in the ancient early, 1990's. i grew up on dupont circle. mom was the first black woman to have an afro. this is definitely the remix. [laughter] we have to think of that type. of the 1970's, when a remix of

the american dream was reclaiming a sense of agency. if you look at nixon's southern strategy, the idea was the legacy we see in the republicans. , well,look at ben carson he is a character on his own. [laughter] seriously. as a lot of players going on still echoing the echo chamber. >> re-think about what this means in america culture. i think it can be a very on the thing. >> it's not about suppressing history area i think that's where the idea of being if you lookcorrect at the difference between germany and an the germans

accepted the legate the of the destructive nature of ideology. it's a very famous artists -- essay analogy evil. same't think americans thing with the japanese. the japanese are widely hated by the koreans and chinese. japan is amazing, but their history is they suppressed number of walmart to. and i think my culture suppresses a make it even more trade the germans alike love terrible stuff happens the swastika and bands when you talk about this. when i see confederate flag epic of the swastika sign kind of car.

>> your ideas and that is suppressing the three main. >> or having ended russian area what i think too many times people center playing the race hard. problems orrsonal whatever you call white privilege, people tend to think that the playing field is level and the world is not that. about youhas to be thinking about the categories of how we look at economic and identity area i grow. d.c. and the ronald reagan on one in. that's it. i want to play clip. initially the idea is that you are storytelling.

[indiscernible] >> struggles with an escalating war in europe. a woman's right to vote.

recovering thell deadly civil war. throes of an attempt to create the league of nation wilson saw very different vision than he did with his international ideals. the league of nations was an attempt to form what he called an organization to end all wars. his screen the birth of a nation at the white house. it was the first film to play there in american history. the birth of a nation set the tone. it is still used to debate about how much progress has or has not heard. and whether such a films that have ever been made. america, the three

birth of a nation hangs as vector. ultimately, the birth of a nation is about controversy. it's a deep ignorance. it was something in the tradition of america the, the minstrel show. it's that the tone for the 21st wouldy when media literally create a visual democracy. the rebirth of a nation -- the

timetable became the projector. all of those things look back through history. it's been said that those who don't learn from history are due to repeated. [applause]the truth? >> masking and that ain't to come up q&a.

we're asking them to come up in case there are any difficult questions. people walk up to the microphones? who's in charge here? >> i assume people walk up to the microphone. they are on each side. one is locking up to one. i wanted to know little more inut dw griffith, who he was his beliefs. and they were just up on the screen. i wanted to know little bit more about how that movie actually got funded. was its northern money or southern? >> griffith grew up listening to his father confederate veteran tell the stories about the civil war. he was sitting under the table listing to them go on on about

all this. he did not write the original book. that's by thomas dixon the klansmen. it was the name of the movie even when he took it to the white house. they were telling the story that they grown up with about the great travesty. this was made in hollywood. the source of the money is not southern it's northern and western. bazillion dollars. he ran out of money as it was making it in gateway shares in the home along the way. in 1907 failed actor medium saw this new emerging around him in new york.

he started acting and then he you go from the three-minute video they were starting make longer one. in eight years ago something nobody to dw griffith. this is the last film you made. he peaked and then went away. >> i have two questions area first is you know where we can actually see the original? can you talk about about his next movie tolerance? >> he's also wrong by the response of his genius that he decided to make a movie about intolerance for history.

he spent a million dollars of the money than to make this film and it crashed and burned. he never really -- the great travesty came on movies are the talking and he never did adapt that. the movie is easily available on >> it did crash and burn in terms of its influence, it to was very very powerful. the analog devices shooting in in each of the four different characters. it was not a commercials that again is dust was influencing filmmakers. this is an incredibly famous in the original are some that shape hollywood. >> you make films about the civil war were made this one.

>> just as footnote he also made a movie broken blossom which is another's worry of the evil of interracial make thing that it said in a chinatown. it's a film that talking about the evils of having chinese evil in the united states and how this could lead to interracial mixing. it senate session that he has that is not limited to african-americans. although when he makes the film immigration from china has been virtually banned nonetheless he makes the film in the 1920's. if could say something about another big air 1915 to the influx of immigrants to this country?

especially from eastern europe. when we think of the time. it's all about immigration. i was thinking about in two ways one is reconstruction but also the rise of the importance of this movie is so. i was picturing it showing in new york which is worse where ellis island is. >> i would love to respond to that because you have to remember this book. white people. dids never american woman this epic narrative. in europe everybody is issues with everybody. when the come here they're all white. is an intriguing theology of how white becoming allegory. novak, english always have trouble with the french and with the germans.

modela had a reductionist allowed consolidating the role whiteness. is toonifying theme area alienated white families. day, looking the for. is a pretty vitter good role model fragrance. see theeasily definition of whiteness. culture. say whiteness to is an important theme of this is also where national origins are being sized. were looking towards eugenics.

in the idea of racial purity. cultivating a particular people's genius. americans share that. connect to me.to to get this film and its emphasis on race. catholics within the target of a lot. >> i think it's important to note that although immigration is a highly restrictive immigration law passed. because there are some the americans who were again the notion of letting in many more will.

as of today we can see that there is conflict in american history over whether we will in fact let lots of other people in or not. there is a moment of immigration. but this by 1920 is becoming a moment where the station of immigration is becoming very important in the united states. number ofived a things on whether. all dead contemporaries dorians you are a nation? lots on the city was the political scientist audits taurean.

who the interesting thing is that the reading i've done for neversuggest that himself actually said history written with lightning. but that was a claim. and wilson was angry at the way he was commercialized. himself.to distance he felt like he was con are these guys who were in the marketing. i think that the historical and

political science repression does not give the until afterent world war ii. it's not that it went unchallenged just went unchallenged in the establishment. >> the idea of the birth of democracy -- the famous historian -- the genius of the people to govern them go. so just come from a certain kind of forest. >> you need a big seminar. first of all thank you for being here. absolutely fantastic. i just moved from l.a..

of years ago so movie theater was going to show this film that there was a huge ride. more or less in the three different perspectives one people saying is not to be shown there were going to do protests and so forth. that it wasing pushing censorship and it should be shown in three does rise to that it should be shown with discussion and education area a huge outcry. going along with that twitter thetion the question is last couple of weeks in missouri unbelievable what happened there. princeton students now are stating that they want his name removed from the building.

mrs. crossing all campuses were there is that use in buildings named after folks who are about races. the question is should that happen? we remove the name and statues of all these who have >>petuated white supremacy? i told you i invited you a pair for cap westjet. >> like a fool i said i'll come area >> depends on who it is. it difficult line drawing option. is in the middle. when we talk about the long mind able. john c calhoun has to go. -- if we are going to start disappearing everybody was with the premise is, were not to

have any statues left. that the exaggeration. it's a tough question. as historians we deal all the time complexities. -- there are three people. i'm not joking about calhoun. there are some people who -- there are no redeeming all in these. that is helping that is moving us forward today. both of them on the fence about. i don't think you should be totally disappeared. with someoneoblem who actually did do some good ideas.

think your answer. the discussion is good. the difficult line drawing function. he is a difficult one for me. >> i'm afraid that's mbs. i would like to think or three guests. [applause] we also want to thank the entire team.

like to think c-span. >> and we like to think our good friend back story staff. many thanks to back stories generous donors. [applause] >> thanks very much everybody. obviously we could talk about this for hours.

what happens next? >> can we do closing remarks >> me at least the beauty of this kind of fan all is that debate and discussion is healthy. i think a society that has a healthy sense of strength in its own interior should be able to have an honest and adult discussion about some of the issues that are deeply problematic. the film to me at least is very tarnished legacy precisely because of the suppression and the other issues he will probably say go into the basic fabric of american siding.

where the long tradition of voter suppression. all issues that our society should only have a lot more candid about. i'm all for debate and discussion. but it's got an orwellian. i don't think we have to rate things. like he said all the things i would say. theh is basically i think russian is the most important element. if we walk around illuminating all the things we don't like about the past you'll find out you can't learn from it. there will be no i think it is essentially put some of these things in the forefront so we can talk about

it today and relate their relevance to our present. motto is we need more history, not less. them i will try to make it quick. unless we can go over. >> i think it is a good idea to keep it quick. i don't have much time to yield. >> that gentleman got to something i wanted to ask. i was watching and and it reminded me of this film called triumph of the will. they have some of the same principles applied.

aboutk they are talked differently, there was a clear cap. if they ever died, the re-ignition of it. howery -- how are we able to the birth of the nation in the same vein as the triumph of the will. -- all of them reframe it as an epic struggle. anyone can say -- then you have

stalin, which is not so great. if you are living in germany and hitler, don't forget, was democratically elected. crazyated this dictatorship. intriguing enough to become a photographer. her photography of nubian warriors really interesting. she liked warrior dudes, i guess. a lot of everything. at the end of the day when we look at history, he's a brilliant filmmaker. an incredible sense of cinematography. griffith again is an incredible filmmaker. for me at least, it should be

copyright open source. it is already being revised. a difference frame of reference points are generated. we can't say this is all of a sudden going to be a pc thing. nobody should talk about racism. i'm trying to push this as my own participation as an open discussion. for want to thank everybody joining us for this open discussion.

>> will you are watching american history tv. all weekend every weekend on c-span3. to join the conversation, like us on facebook. this week on lectures in the louisiana state university professor andrew burstein speaks on the enlightenment era to show how these endeavors were in line with the humanist ideals of the time. he also argues that the great awakening, a religious movement of the 1740's, was in conflict with the emphasis on scientific thinking. this class was about an hour.